This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Gu v. The Verge resolved
Gu has lost the lawsuit [1], with the court finding that some of the claims made in the piece are "substantially true", while others are statements of opinion (The full judgement can be found here). Given this, I think it's time to revisit whether the piece should be included in the article. I am aware of the previous RfC result, but this was several years ago, and Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change, especially in the light of this court result. The original wording mentioned in the RfC was in my opinion (and in those of the RfC participants), bad, and should not be used as basis to include the allegations. Even if there's a consensus to exclude the sexual assault and domestic violence allegations. I still think there's material in the piece worth including, like the allegation that Gu operated sockpuppet accounts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that this issue should be revisited in light of the court opinion. Marquardtika (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no significant article discussing that Gu lost his case. It looks like Original Research to infer the status of a court case without significant coverage other than a relatively unknown blog from reason.com that may or may not be politically biased. Furthermore, looking through the past RfC and discussion sections, it appears that this article has been vandalized multiple times. There was discussion about a Donald Trump Jr. attack in USA Today and then all the contentious articles appeared after that attack. If someone is involved in fetal tissue research and attacks from high profile people in politics, it seems that Gu would be especially vulnerable to contentious articles. CommotioCordis (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the new section mentioned the abuse allegations so your point is irrelevant. The Verge is a reliable source according to WP:RSP. There was also precisely zero reason to remove the Trump Twitter lawsuit section, which was not controversial. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would need a new RfC to revisit a previous RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 00:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RfC only covered a specific wording, which mentioned sexual abuse allegations, which are not mentioned in this version of the article, so the RfC is not relevant. Also fyi. CommotioCordis is a sock account, likely of someone closely associated with Gu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't concerned with the sock and their behaviour. The person starting this thread asked whether it was time to include the allegations that the RfC was the subject of. I think there's nothing wrong with the current "Twitter" section given the citations used are reliable according to WP:RS/P and there's nothing WP:UNDUE in the section at present, but anything else beyond that to include Don Jr's accusations would require a new RfC, given the results of the previous RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 00:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that mentioning Don. Jr and the 2011 domestic violence allegation is probably undue, given that the domestic violence record seems to have been expunged. However, I think there is a case that the separate abuse allegation made by a woman that The Verge calls Allison may be due to include. [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would require an RfC I think, in light of previous RfC and particularly given no conviction that would be problematic re: WP:BLPTarnishedPathtalk 01:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit and discussion history, this page seemed to have been vandalized multiple times. There are contentious warnings and labels attached here as well. Adding a new section in a BLP that is potentially contentious should not be taken lightly.CommotioCordis (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the RfC at Talk:Eugene_Gu/Archive_2 the question in the RfC is Should the article include the following text: In 2018, President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., accused Dr. Gu of being a "wife beater" in a succession of tweets and asked Gu's hospital to fire him. Gu responded by saying Trump Jr. was “making false accusations” and “promoting libel” to millions of followers online. Gu said he had received tens of thousands of harassing tweets in the hours after being "targeted" by the president's son. Absolutely none of this is covered in the current section, so pointing to the RfC as if this is relevant is a bad argument. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something feels quite fishy with the editors involved on this article who are quick to violate BLP policies and overturn previous RfCs with unanimous consensus. If a new controversies section should be added to this article then a new RfC should be held. NihonGoBashi (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the original RFC has no reference to the article in The Verge at all, so it's a bit apples and oranges. Also NihonGoBashi is likely to be a sock of ScienceForeverLife(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) a sockfarm that has attempted to control Gu's biography over 7 years (see CranberryMuffin for the oldest account) through the manipulative use of multiple accounts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original RfC did however cover the accusations and so the RfC binds the same material. TarnishedPathtalk 01:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less about socks, they generally get found out. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the abuse allegations by "Allison" against Eugene Gu be included, cited to The Verge? (example version) Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
Yes The 2021 RfC (see Talk:Eugene_Gu/Archive_2) was specifically about the inclusion of the following text: In 2018, President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., accused Dr. Gu of being a "wife beater" in a succession of tweets and asked Gu's hospital to fire him. Gu responded by saying Trump Jr. was “making false accusations” and “promoting libel” to millions of followers online. Gu said he had received tens of thousands of harassing tweets in the hours after being "targeted" by the president's son., cited to a story in the The Tennessean[3]. As the story in The Verge clarifies [4], the account of "Allison" is a separate allegation involving a different woman than that mentioned in The Tennessean, so therefore to bring this is up is somewhat of a red herring, and the article in The Verge was never mentioned in the RfC at all. This RfC is not suggesting including this text or any text specifically about the allegation mentioned in the 2021 RfC.The Verge is a solidly reliable source as per WP:RSP. Given that Gu has lost a libel lawsuit against The Verge regarding the article, I do not see any major BLP issues with the inclusion. Given the domestic violence allegations against another woman (the subject of the 2021 RfC) has been expunged from court records (see The Verge article for details), I don't think it should be mentioned in this article explicitly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Agree that the Don Jr. stuff is a red herring. The Verge is a good source and losing the libel source against it only makes the case for using it stronger. That said, we should avoid the WP:CSECTION used in the example linked above and fold the content into another section such as "Personal life". Marquardtika (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No The proposed material accuse's Gu of a criminal offense and no conviction has ever been obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME, "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". TarnishedPathtalk 01:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The judgement for Gu's lawsuit against The Verge essentially describes Gu as a public figure with a high public profile [5]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the judgement: Here, Dr. Gu has plainly "thrust [him] self into the public spotlight and sought a continuing public interest in [his] activities," by writing; appearing on camera; granting press interviews; and tweeting extensively about his social activism, racial discrimination against Asian Americans, and the retaliation and harassment he claims to have endured in response. Accordingly, Dr. Gu has clearly sought the public spotlight, and is thus a limited purpose public figure as it relates to his activism and the harassment and bullying surrounding itHemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? I'm not suggesting citing it to say this in the article. I'm using it to make a point in talkpage discussion that Gu is a public figure when you're asserting that he isn't. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't use primary sources in articles, we shouldn't be using them in our arguments in RfCs. I also write on matters of public interest and on some social media platforms. By the judge's _OPINION_, I must be a public figure. He hasn't been convicted and so we should seriously consider not including the material. TarnishedPathtalk 01:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Looking at the example version link given, I don't think there's enough reliable sources to make these allegations WP:DUE for inclusion. Best to err on the side of caution per the WP:BLP policy. Some1 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Some1: "Allison" in The Verge story is the same as @DrMeowskis discussed in this Vice News article [6], wherein it is alleged that Gu sexually harassed her. Would the Vice News and The Verge stories together be enough? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
